NLRB Argues That Employers Cannot Prohibit An Employee From Wearing Clothing With Vulgar & Obscene Messages On It

In an incredible complaint that just came to light, the acting general counsel of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) contended that an employer’s work rule that prohibited off-duty employees on company property from wearing clothing with displays of profanity, vulgarity, or obscene or offensive words or pictures was a violation of the National Labor Relations Act. According to the NLRB, the rule would reasonably be construed by workers as restricting their Section 7 activities.

The agency’s complaint was filed in September 2011, against Caesars Entertainment Rio All-Suites Hotel & Casino’s, the owner and operator of Caesar’s Palace in Las, Vegas, Nevada. Last week, an administrative law judge soundly rejected the NLRB’s argument. The judge also rejected the NLRB’s claim that four other employer work rules violated the law. The agency lucked out with one violation of the six alleged.

What this complaint makes unmistakably clear is that while most hard working Americans are spending their time wondering how they are going to be able to pay their mortgage or fill up their car with gas, the NLRB is wasting taxpayer money trolling through employer work rules and then filing absurd charges. We have to presume that for this NLRB the “F” word or other vulgarities are necessary elements of concerted or union activity.

The reality is that the vast majority of American businesses do not enact work rules to restrict their employees’ lawful activities, but to maintain order and discipline, and protect the best interests of the business for the benefit of the employer and its employees. This is lost on the hyper-politicized agency whose union boss affiliated political leadership thinks that “business,” “entrepreneurship” and “profit” are profanity.

This, of course, is the same Obama-appointed acting counsel who wrongly accused Boeing of unlawfully transferring unit work to a right-to-work state, is allowing the Internet to be used to exacerbate workplace tensions and undermine an employer’s reputation, and has asked agency regional directors to “bring me cases” that would overturn previous Board decisions based on the fact he agreed with his friend’s (read: Wilma Liebman) dissent.

President Obama’s labor board is consistently demonstrating that it is not only partisan when it comes to the issue of unionization, it is decidedly anti-business and more than willing to use its prosecutorial authority to undermine employers in their efforts to legitimately protect their workplaces for themselves, and their employees and customers.